Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: "OSX is teh new windows 98"

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    492
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madrass View Post
    My question is this is it is not SOO secure why the hackers do tek a run at it, jus to prove a point.
    Who are you proving it to? Max OSX is not on enough computers to get a hacker noticed. Hackers are not trying to punch holes in grandma's PC, they want the Pentagon. Windows is a better target because it is a bigger target and when you get through everybody knows your name.

    You hunt the lion, not the gazelle.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    6,327
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Unix has had trojans and viruses since before most of you were alive..please bear that in mind.

    Even Netware had viruses...
    Last edited by Arch_Angel; Nov 7, 2007 at 04:54 PM. Reason: removed reference to deleted post
    Let Them Hate, So Long As They Fear.
    You do not know whereof you speak,and your words are empty things.
    Listen and gain Wisdom.

    http://twitter.com/nestersan

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,181
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    He is right. Just like how a lot of time and care went into the development of OS X, unlike Windows Vista, that led to the sharp rise in popularity of OS X, If hackers gave OS X the beating Windows have been getting over the years then we all would be singing a different tune.
    'If we're supposed to work in Hex, why have we only got A fingers?'

    Follow Me: @psybuck2002us

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,700
    Rep Power
    0

    Thumbs up Osx

    The idea that I'm presenting here is that OSX is man made, just like Windows. As I've said many times before on this site, if man can make it, man can break it. Windows' ubiquity is what makes it viable for brute force hacking. If OSX were as popular as Windows, your arguments would be similar, only that you'd be saying that about OSX and not Windows. Then there would be other people saying that Windows is more secure than OSX for the same narrow-minded reasons.

    The only way to determine which OS is more secure than another is to visit alternate realities where OSX or Linux is more popular than windows. However, as my quantum phase reactor is broken (I need a new flux capacitor), I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.

    A better argument would be against Object Oriented Programming (used in Windows) versus standard sequential, modular programming (used in Other operating systems). Object Oriented Programming can make even bad programmers look good, because it hides potential errors in code design with software resusability. That means that since Windows is built on re-used code, if there is a flaw with one of the base modules, then every future version of Windows would carry that flaw.

    With sequential modular programming, software reuse is open to modification - so base modules are more easily corrected than as it is with pre-compiled object containers as it is with object oriented programming. With sequential, modular programming Bad programmers can't get away. Their code will not work. THAT is a better argument against Windows, than the atypical, baseless Bill Gates bashing that elitist techies are used to. Bill Gates has proven himself to be a far better software designer & businessman than the whole lot - and that's what has pissed off so many of his contemporaries.

    This is nothing more than bad mind. OSX will get their due just like Windows has. Just give them hackers a few years.
    Last edited by Arch_Angel; Nov 7, 2007 at 04:54 PM. Reason: removed reference to deleted post

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The popularity of the stupid mac is rising, when the hackers and 'em start to think its worth their time, it'll start to get its proper beating too.
    Last edited by Arch_Angel; Nov 7, 2007 at 04:53 PM. Reason: removed reference to deleted post
    Click the link if you would like to see a solution to the problems that face humanity; war, hunger, poverty and suffering, crime, inequality, control, corruption and all the other things that negatively affect our planet. www.thevenusproject.com and www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    510
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Read the full article and all i saw was a official looking codec that requires the user to download themself, install themself, and execute using the admin's username and password. How i see it this can happen to all OSes secure or not. Until i see where a hacker does what they did back in 98 im not in a bit awed.

    As 1 reader said. If someone tricks u into giving the the keys to your house and the security code for u alarm thing, There is not a deadbolt in the world that could stop them from walking into your front door
    Phenom II X4 955 (3.6Ghz), HD 4670(soon upgrade), AM2+ gigabit board, 4gb DDR2, cant afford any 3 yet....

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,685
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I can't believe we are having such discussions still. I will only waste my breath commenting on a few things.

    1. Security has nothing to do with popularity. UNIX is a very secure OS because it was designed and built secure from the ground up. Linux and OS X are both Unix based. More specifically, OS X is Unix. They are arguably not as popular as Windows (I won't argue about why I say arguably) but that does not explain why they are not targeted or successfully exploited.

    They are not successfully exploited because they are in fact harder to exploit because of their design. Linux even more so. You will never have a Linux "virus" that will bring all Linux boxes to their knees because there is no uniformity to exploit. Unfortunately, thats not the same for OS X. But its design will keep it from falling into the same problem as monkey patched Windows.

    2.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blunty Killer
    Who are you proving it to? Max OSX is not on enough computers to get a hacker noticed. Hackers are not trying to punch holes in grandma's PC, they want the Pentagon. Windows is a better target because it is a bigger target and when you get through everybody knows your name.
    Did you think through what you just typed? If you successfully write a virus to bring OS X to its knees you WILL get noticed. You will get more notice than if you join the millions of idiots who download and modify the toy viruses on Windows.

    Furthermore, Unix is preferred in mission critical environments. Unix runs the heart of the net, bank networks, and space ships (well, most of NASA). Those seem like pretty good targets for exploiting. One problem: you can't go and download little point and click applications to "write" a "virus" for these operating systems. STOP. Don't even think it! No, that will not be the case when these OSes get more "mainstream".

    3.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenocrates
    Actually, WINDOWS is more secure, because it's been torn apart more often than OSX. You can't say that one OS is more secure than another when it has no battle scars to prove it.
    Xeno, I'm disappointed in you. Windows is more secure because it has been torn apart more? Come on! If anything, having to tear it apart to much to patch it and repatch it speaks to a flawed design more than anything else.

    In conclusion (and I do mean conclusion, cuz I will not be posting on this thread again) Yes, the popularity of the stupid Mac is rising. It's been rising steadily for about 7 years now. Isn't it about time Macs get some love too? Maybe if Macs had viruses, people would take it more seriously. *sighs*. Ok. Forget all of what I just said. Go back to your exciting virus laden lives. Bring on the excitement!
    Last edited by nder; Nov 7, 2007 at 10:15 PM.
    The answer you seek is *+5,2*3,2
    Check out my blog: http://rants.andreobrown.com

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    The popularity of the mac has been rising for the past 7 years, and how much progress has 7 years accomplished, the pc still rules. Hopefully, they become so popular that they cause enough competition to make microsoft do better where it regards pricing, and also stop releasing unfinished operating systems.
    Click the link if you would like to see a solution to the problems that face humanity; war, hunger, poverty and suffering, crime, inequality, control, corruption and all the other things that negatively affect our planet. www.thevenusproject.com and www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    6,327
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    BTW.. OSX had viruses(more accurately a worm) back in 2003..'Switchback' for example.
    Last edited by Nestersan; Nov 8, 2007 at 09:22 AM.
    Let Them Hate, So Long As They Fear.
    You do not know whereof you speak,and your words are empty things.
    Listen and gain Wisdom.

    http://twitter.com/nestersan

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,700
    Rep Power
    0

    Thumbs up Ubiquity vs. Difficulty

    Quote Originally Posted by nder View Post
    I can't believe we are having such discussions still.
    - Me neither.

    Quote Originally Posted by nder View Post
    Security has nothing to do with popularity.
    - You will eat your words in no more than 5 years. I promise.

    Quote Originally Posted by nder View Post
    They are not successfully exploited because they are in fact harder to exploit because of their design.
    - Anything that man made can be broken by man. I've said it a thousand times. Nothing man makes lasts forever. This includes software. Ask any CISSP. They will tell you that "security" is only valid so long as someone doesn't figure out how to circumvent it. No form of security is unbreakable. Once a door is a door, it can be opened - whether legitimately or otherwise. Therefore your arguments are moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by nder View Post
    Linux even more so. You will never have a Linux "virus" that will bring all Linux boxes to their knees because there is no uniformity to exploit.
    - WRONG. All flavours of Linux use the same or similar kernel. You're limiting your thinking to the packaging model of various flavours. That doesn't mean anything. A well written virus that targets the kernel will floor every version or flavour of Linux.

    Quote Originally Posted by nder View Post
    Unfortunately, thats not the same for OS X. But its design will keep it from falling into the same problem as monkey patched Windows.
    - Linux distributions have updates too you know - did you know that? I bet you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be giving in to the propaganda with that "monkey patched" description. If Linux was perfect, they wouldn't need to be patched. EVERY SOFTWARE IS PATCHED. Even the software that comes with your cellphone can receive software patches from time to time. Again, your thinking is severely limited.

    Quote Originally Posted by nder View Post
    Xeno, I'm disappointed in you. Windows is more secure because it has been torn apart more? Come on! If anything, having to tear it apart to much to patch it and repatch it speaks to a flawed design more than anything else.
    - The major flaw in your thinking is that you fail to consider the ubiquity of Windows. Neither OSX or Linux or any other OS has the same ubiquity. You alluded to the very same thing when you said that you can't download a point and click interface to build a virus for those OSes. YOU WERE RIGHT! Therefore any argument that suggests that ubiquity doesn't increase the target threshhold exponentially, is automatically and fundamentally FLAWED.

    You will never know how secure OSX, or Linux is unless they become MORE popular than Windows. What you also fail to understand is the mind of a hacker. Black Hackers aren't loyal to any particular platform. For them, it's all about EGO. Taking down a centrally based UNIX system won't get them the media attention or recognition they crave as building a virus that disrupts the most ubiquitous software platform on EARTH.

    Furthermore, targetting UNIX boxes in mission critical environments is POINTLESS. You know why? Have you ever heard of SERVER CLUSTERING? Ask anyone here who is MCSE certified and they will tell you what it is. Usually in MISSION CRITICAL environments, UNIX servers are CLUSTERED - meaning that they are configured as load balancing fail-over machines. In mission critical environments, they are usually spread across the globe. So even if some hacker were to somehow bring down a central UNIX box, there are SEVERAL other boxes across the world that are ready to go up and take its place. None of them are physically connected to the same network - so a sufficiently clever virus can't propagate to all the clustered servers FAST enough to create the same effect.

    Furthermore, most financial insititutions will not hurt their customer confidence level by PUBLICIZING the fact that their network was severely compromised by HACKERS. So hackers won't get the ego boost they desire.

    HOWEVER...

    Write a virus for the most ubiquitous software platform on the planet, and you WILL get noticed. You won't necessarily cripple financial or government systems, but you WILL get props to feed the ego machine. Ego-driven Hackers prefer a LOUD upfront platform to get their names on the FBI most wanted list. It is the ultimate ephemeral adrenaline rush to be infamous. Therefore my arguments still stand:

    Windows' ubiquity makes it a more secure platform (from a software standpoint) simply because it is targetted more than any other software platform on the planet. Ubiquity is Windows' greatest weakness - not its design. Furthermore, remember that Linux is open source - so hackers won't get the same kind of props from taking down a Linux box as they would a Windows box.

    Hacking Linux is like trying to break into a Supermarket during open hours. Everybody knows the source code - so there's no challenge there. Hacking Windows is like breaking into a Bank vault at night - because the source code is not available to just anyone.

    Can you see the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by nder View Post
    Forget all of what I just said. Go back to your exciting virus laden lives. Bring on the excitement!
    - Consider it done!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •